暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

» In documenting a patient encounter, the orthopaedic evaluation consists of 3 key components: “History,” “Physical Examination,” and “Medical Decision-Making.” » The level of service coded must be supported by the complexity of the problem, the care provided, and the documentation of the encounter. » Determining whether the patient is new or established is the first step in the evaluation and management (E/M) process and relies on same-practice/same-specialty rules. » Careful attention must be paid to documentation and coding to allow for appropriate care of the patient and efficient use of the orthopaedist’s time. The available step-by-step guidelines include all necessary criteria to accomplish this. » Continue to monitor for the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) changes to stay up-to-date on changes in the guidelines.

Coding in sports medicine generally uses sports-specific coding systems rather than the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), because of superior applicability to the profile of injury and illness presentations in sport. New categories for coding were agreed on in the \'International Olympic Committee (IOC) consensus statement: Methods for recording and reporting of epidemiological data on injury and illness in sports 2020.\' We explain the process for determining the new categories and update both the Sport Medicine Diagnostic Coding System (SMDCS) and the Orchard Sports Injury and Illness Classification System (OSIICS) with new versions that operationalise the new consensus categories. The author group included members from an expert group attending the IOC consensus conference. The primary authors of the SMDCS (WM) and OSIICS (JO) produced new versions that were then agreed on by the remaining authors using expert consensus methodology. The SMDCS and OSIICS systems have been adjusted and confirmed through a consensus process to align with the IOC consensus statement to facilitate translation between the two systems. Problematic areas for defining body part categories included the groin and ankle regions. For illness codes, in contrast to the ICD, we elected to have a taxonomy of \'organ system/region\' (eg, cardiovascular and respiratory), followed by an \'aetiology/pathology\' (eg, environmental, infectious disease and allergy). Companion data files have been produced that provide translations between the coding systems. The similar structure of coding underpinning the OSIICS and SMDCS systems aligns the new versions of these systems with the IOC consensus statement and also facilitates easier translation between the two systems. These coding systems are freely available to the sport and exercise research community.

In the UK, there is ongoing integration of pharmacists into general practice as a new healthcare service in primary care. Evaluation of the service involves national measures that require pharmacists to record their work, on the general practice clinical computer systems, using electronic activity codes. No national agreement, however, has been established on what activities to record. The purpose of this study was to attempt to reach consensus on what activities general practice-based pharmacists should record.
The e-Delphi method was chosen as it is an excellent technique for achieving consensus. The study began with an initial stage in which screening of a general practice clinical computer system and discussion groups with pharmacists from two \'pharmacists in general practice\' sites identified 81 codes potentially relevant to general practice-based pharmacists\' work. Twenty-nine experts (pharmacists and pharmacy technicians from the two sites along with experts recruited through national committees) were then invited by e-mail to participate as a panel in three e-Delphi questionnaire rounds. In each round, panellists were asked to grade or rank codes and justify their choices. In every round, panellists were provided with anonymised feedback from the previous round which included their individual choices along with their co-panellists\' views. Final consensus (in Round 3) was defined as at least 80% agreement. Commentaries on the codes from all e-Delphi rounds were pooled together and analysed thematically.
Twenty-one individual panellists took part in the study (there were 12 responses in Round 1, 18 in Round 2 and 16 in Round 3). Commentaries on the codes included three themes: challenges and facilitators; level of detail; and activities related to funding. Consensus was achieved for ten codes, eight of which related to activities (general and disease specific medication reviews, monitoring of high-risk drugs and medicines reconciliation) and two to patient outcomes (presence of side effects and satisfactory understanding of medication).
A formal consensus method revealed general practice-based pharmacists\' preferences for activity coding. Findings will inform policy so that any future shaping of activity coding for general practice-based pharmacists takes account of pharmacists\' actual needs and preferences.

All of the currently available guidelines specify a two-stage procedure. The first stage entails performing a comprehensive description, diagnosis and confirmation of the dementia syndrome. The second stage involves the precise etiological classification. Alzheimer\'s disease represents the most common cause followed by vascular dementia and Parkinson\'s disease dementia, Lewy body dementia, frontotemporal lobar degeneration and others. Dementia encompasses a variety of underlying conditions. This review gives an overview of the clinically oriented diagnosis according to the updated S3 guidelines in Germany.

The quality of the information provided in post-transplant follow-up is necessary to obtain a coherent and exploitable database. Since the beginning of 2017, three forms (Med-B-allograft) have been available: the first month (Day 0), Day 100 (second report) and an annual follow-up report. Recommendations for follow-up were addressed in the 2014 harmonization workshop, \"Harmonization of Data Coding…\". However, it is sometimes difficult to determine which data to specify in ProMISe for post-transplantation. The objective of this workshop was to clarify certain situations and/or items.